Panentheists, what is your take on creationism?

I'm a panentheist. I like creationism.

fantome profane said:

Please be specific, I hope to go beyond just the labels. Do you accept the concept of natural selection? Do you accept the concept of common descent?

Click to expand...

I dont believe in creation. Something doesnt come from nothing.

I do not believe in creationism. If there is an irreconcilable divide between creator and created, then the Godhead in question would not encompass all and thus not be truly divine. Further, there are the usual questions of why a perfect being would do so, the immorality of it, etc.

fantome profane said:

Please be specific, I hope to go beyond just the labels. Do you accept the concept of natural selection? Do you accept the concept of common descent?

Click to expand...

I believe that Creationism is talking about the development of the human ego; living soul. The modern human brain contains two centers of consciousness; inner self and the ego. Animals have an inner self but not an ego. The ego center, which is unique to modern humans allows choice and will power apart from natural instinct and the inner self.

The bible dating of Genesis, coincides with a discovery in science; 6000 years ago, which was the invention of writing. Adam formed from the dust of the earth; stone dust as it developed his new invention. Writing would have made it possible for this secondary center of consciousness to form in the human brain. The ego would then begin to make choices that were separate from natural; fall from paradise and instinct. Based on this key invention and the will of the ego, Genesis was among the first published theories for the creation of the universe and life on earth. It was the cutting edge science of its day with the unique accolade of being the first published due to the new invention.

Consider going to school or university at a time when there is no written language. There is spoken language but no books, blackboards, noting taking, laptops, etc. One would need to depend on memory with a group of students not always agreeing on what they heard. Even in modern times, what we learn with writing is soon forgotten, except for bits and pieces. Before writing the brain remained more fluid to the here and now, able to forward integrate and then return to instinct.

Science data shows that civilization attempted to form many times before the first persistent civilization, with dating as early as 10,000 years ago. Before the invention of writing the creative knowledge of the elders would be misunderstood and then forgotten and their attempt at sustain civilization would be aborted. With the invention of writing about 6000 years ago, a way appears to allow the seeds knowledge to persist, so it can be learned fresh and anew each generation.

The bible tells us that Adam and Eve; first two egos who were both formed, were living in paradise up to the fall when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In ancient tradition, Adam was an expert at math and science. He was the first scientist and engineer with his use of the new invention, not harming instinct. Recording data does not harm instinct, since this data was useful in the future and for innovation.

What caused a change was writing down knowledge of good and evil or law. Putting law or knowledge of good in evil into writing, instead of using language and instinct, caused obsolete law to linger too long in time, resulting in a more permanent repression of natural behavior. This repression and the resultant inner conflict helped the ego form in the other pre-humans, which compounded unnatural choices apart from instinct. After the fall civilization got very perverted due to choice and will. The great flood of Noah symbolize a type of system restore for male and female; two of eat animal.

This change in the human brain was partly evolutionary, and partly creationism since the invention of writing was manmade, while the application of the invention to law, led to a regressive potential in the brain, that further altered the inner self and human instinct in favor of ego choice and will.

The modern analogy is how cell phones have caused people to seek data about reality from a little box that is full of misinformation, instead of learning from the real thing with all your sensory systems. This change is not exactly evolution since it less about DNA, and more about ego choices in an alternate form of reality, based on making money or swaying opinions. It is a form of human creationism that may proceed a physical change in the brain.

fantome profane said:

Please be specific, I hope to go beyond just the labels. Do you accept the concept of natural selection? Do you accept the concept of common descent?

Click to expand...

If we hold to having evolved from a single cell organism, how can we not accept common descent? I visualize an egg in a mother's womb in similar manner as a single cell organism from which we evolved. Primordial soup, uninhabitable as we are as living, breathing, creatures. The concept is evidenced daily in the conception and birth of nearly every lifeform on earth. This is about as specific as I can be in relation to the greater universe, en-cluding that which has yet to be developed and formed from what is.

fantome profane said:

Please be specific, I hope to go beyond just the labels. Do you accept the concept of natural selection? Do you accept the concept of common descent?

Click to expand...

I believe that labels, natural and common are words that are subject to change. Its always possible to change the demographic. Which requires spiritual contemplation and personal focus.